RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance | Result: Keep

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Off-mission fancruft stub. Deletion was discussed previously & supported by most editors apart from the article's author (see talk page). Nothing has been done to expand, improve or make it relevant in the eighteen months since. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
2. May perhaps be missional. I haven't read it. But the current stub doesn't add much ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
3. No debunking present. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk)
4. Yeah, hard to find a truly missional reason to keep this one (as FCP put it above), even in the event that the article wasn't a stub. Which it is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Well, I'll be. That revision dug up by Alec Sanderson seems like something we could salvage. Never mind that it's being tossed around as "the world's most widely read book on philosophy". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
2. ^ That. The reason the older version got removed is because there were no references and the author threw a fit when this was pointed out ... :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
3. See RBS above. FuzzyCatPotato of the Rude REMs (talk/stalk)
4. Revert to Sanderson's version. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   I'd like to see the current "See also" kept. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Go nuts. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Looks like Paravant took care of it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

5. One of, if not the most influential New Age book. We definitely need an article on it, and it looks like the most glaring issues have been resolved. --Ymir (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   I believe that part of the point of the page is that it's not a new-age book but often perceived as such by people who haven't read it :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   That's the case even among quite a few people who have read it but didn't quite pick up on what it's saying, as the article says. Personally I've seen numerous people, often sympathetic to some kinds of woo, talking about how the book changed their lives. Maybe my comment would have been more accurately worded as, "A book that has had a strong influence on the New Age movement even though it doesn't really advocate New Age ideas, something a lot of readers didn't pick up on." --Ymir (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• There is an older version with some more missional bits. Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)